"Don't ask/Don't tell" is very stupid

[Skeptic]

The problem is one of morale and discipline: would it be bad for fighting troops to know they're serving with an openly gay man in war? Would it be horrible for the rest of the women in the platoon if they find out their sgt. is a lesbian?

Quite apart from whether, if that were the case, it would not mean it must override all other considerations (what if white troops didn't want blacks serving with them?) it seems to me that it's very, very unlikely that this is at all the case.

At any rate I served with gays and lesbians, and didn't care much, nor did anybody else. A few snickers in the tents after lights-out about the lezzie sergeant or the cocks***ing base commander (well, it was the army), sure. For the first couple of weeks. That's about it.

I mean, what exactly are they afraid of? "I can't shoot him, sarge! He's gorgeous!"?

On second thought, Norman Schwatzhopf types in thongs...

 

[MatildaGage]

I get a little sick of people acting like Obama is striking down the last of the Jim Crow laws with this. DADT was part of the military budget for 1993, not 1893. It was signed off on by some of Obama's biggest supporters. It doesn't BAN gays in the military, it bans anyone talking about homosexual experiences/prefernces.

DADT was a response to vicious hatecrimes being commited in the military. However the language was poor and discriminatory and the implamentation turned into a debacle.

DADT is broken and should be tossed out (but MUST be replaced with stiffer hate crime penalties/SOME type of system with dealing with problems it was made to address)

It just REALLY disturbs me when people accuse the original supporters of DADT as being all a bunch of narrow minded bigots and champion Obama for losing an "antiquated" policy.

ITA. I thought DADT was supposed to be an interim policy to full acceptance of gays in the military...while waiting for the social norm to catch up to logic/ethics/sanity.

Repealing it...what does that mean? Going back to the way things were before? Why would we want to do that? Weren't people kicked out for not only asking and telling, but just for being gay too? Why would we want to revert to a worse policy?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

The real reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotlEpmAFVQ

 

[Skeptic]

Another one from that same page: "Ninja parade slips by unnoticed once again".

 

[Thunder]

It doesn't BAN gays in the military, it bans anyone talking about homosexual experiences/prefernces.

do you think we should allow homosexuals to serve in the military?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

In all fairness, DADT dismissals have been on the decline since 9-11. The number increased every year through 2001. Since 2001 the numbers have increased over the previous years only twice and have currently fallen to a third what they were in 2001. Agreed that the rule is silly and disingenuous.

I would think that even one is too many, though.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I would think that even one is too many, though.

Oh fully agreed there. The rule is beyond stupid in my opinion. The emotional plea "of needing them more than ever" has already been working was my point.

 

[Thunder]

i will be very disappointed with Obama if he does not push for the ban on gays be lifted within 2 years.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

i will be very disappointed with Obama if he does not push for the ban on gays be lifted within 2 years.

I'm disappointed he did not ask Congress to draft legal fix in the first month of his office. Then again I doubted he would so I am not shocked.

 

[Thunder]

I'm disappointed he did not ask Congress to draft legal fix in the first month of his office. Then again I doubted he would so I am not shocked.

eh..he focused on the economy. and healthcare. u can't blame him. one battle at a time.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

eh..he focused on the economy. and healthcare. u can't blame him. one battle at a time.

In my opinion homosexual rights should have been the first battle, right after the non-battle of issuing a dismissal of indefinite detention policies. Then again, my opinion does not elect a president. If he had campaigned on rhetoric that had pleased me most he would not have been elected.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

ITA. I thought DADT was supposed to be an interim policy to full acceptance of gays in the military...while waiting for the social norm to catch up to logic/ethics/sanity.

Repealing it...what does that mean? Going back to the way things were before? Why would we want to do that? Weren't people kicked out for not only asking and telling, but just for being gay too? Why would we want to revert to a worse policy?

Actually, I think the idea is more along the lines of hoping that the USA gets dragged kicking and screaming out of the middle ages.

It seems to me like DADT is neither here nor there.

I mean, those who think that gays somehow can't fight and want them out of the army... don't get me wrong, they're stupid, but at least it's a self-consistent kind of stupidity. Fully allowing them is another self-consistent option. But basically "they're OK as long as they're in the closet and we don't know they exist" is hardly even a concession, and just manages to be inconsistent.

And it won't even calm the fears of all the fundies in the mid-west, who think that homosexuality is contagious and that gays will try to ass-rape their children. As already said, a lot of those fear homosexuals who keep it a secret even more. Telling them that basically their little Timmy can share a bunk on the sub with some secret gay isn't going to make them feel any more at ease about gays in the military.

It seems to me like it would be high time to tell them that, no, you can't get your brain rewired just by having a homosexual sneeze on you. And little Timmy won't come back wearing a pink tutu and high heels just because someone might have oggled his ass.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If the law is changed, it will catalyze a change in the culture of the military. Based on anecdotal evidence, the current culture condones, and even encourages homophobia.

 

[Bill Thompson]

The title of this tread is very stupid. It shows that whoever made it doesn't know that Bill Clinton came up with DADT to make the military MORE fair for gays, not LESS fair. It replaced a system that was even much more intollerant.

==============

#1. Its 2010...its time for us to grow up.

non sequitur and special pleading

#2. The Israeli military allows gays. They are doing just fine.

non sequitur. You ignore cultural differences that we have with the rest of the industralized worldl

#3. The NATO forces allows gays. They are doing just fine.

non sequitur and same fault as reason number 2

#4. We have a lack of Arabic and other Middle Eastern and Central Asian languages. It is helping the enemy, to kick out language translators just cause they are gay.

since even moderate muslim nations hang people publically for being gay, you could also argue that being more tolerant could be a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and people willing to do anyting to please Allah will sign up to fight us

#5. Our forces are stretched thin. We need as many willing and able bodies to serve as possible. Keeping out 10% of our population makes NO sense.

you have been reading too much liberal propaganda. We are not stretched thin. We have an armed forces of more than a million and the vast majority are simply in waiting.

Also, the 10 percent is suposition from the gay community.

More scientific surveys put the number at 2 percent.

#6. Gays are in our workplaces. Our sports teams. Our gyms. Our halls of politics. All hell has not broken lose due to this.

that is spoken like someone who thinks the military is just a job like one in the civilian world

#7. Its 2010!!!!!!! Time to grow up America.

Special pleading and appeal to emotion (how is this different from number 1?)

None of these reasons hold water. You got 7? Well, I got 20
www.arguemax.com

Even if they did (hold water... your reasons), in a poll recently 100 million americans are for DADT. So just from a mathematical standpoint doing away with it is ill advised for the military which needs to keep their enlistment numbers up.

You may not know that the Mormons spent 10 million dollars on an ad campaign to convince people in Californa that gays should have the right to marry removed. And it worked!!

You may also not know that most people in red states consider homosexuality to be akin to being a child molester. They are not correct of course. But good luck in changing their minds.

You may also not know that Americans hate change and they fight it with every fibre of their being. Remember when Carter made the metric system law? How well did that go? You can tell people it is good and it make sense, but somehow Americans resist change.

 

[Thunder]

non sequitur and special pleadingnon sequitur. You ignore cultural differences that we have with the rest of the industralized world

what is your argument against patriotic, skilled, loyal, hardworking gay Americans serving in the military?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The title of this tread is very stupid. It shows that whoever made it doesn't know that Bill Clinton came up with DADT to make the military MORE fair for gays, not LESS fair. It replaced a system that was even much more intollerant.

DODT is outdated and needs to be replaced. We need to realize that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. Thus it is stupid to keep around.

non sequitur and special pleadingnon sequitur. You ignore cultural differences that we have with the rest of the industralized worldlnon sequitur and same fault as reason number 2since even moderate muslim nations hang people publically for being gay, you could also argue that being more tolerant could be a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and people willing to do anyting to please Allah will sign up to fight usyou have been reading too much liberal propaganda. We are not stretched thin. We have an armed forces of more than a million and the vast majority are simply in waiting.

I can't even parse what you really mean here, other than that you don't like gay people and neither to the Muslims.

Also, the 10 percent is suposition from the gay community.

More scientific surveys put the number at 2 percent.

So the size of the minority makes a difference on how you treat that minority?

that is spoken like someone who thinks the military is just a job like one in the civilian world

No, it is not just a job. It's a commitment for a certain number of years. However, just like any job, it can be done by homosexuals equally as well as heterosexuals. The fact that other modern armies allow openly homosexuals people into their military and have not suffered for it is evidence of this.

None of these reasons hold water. You got 7? Well, I got 20
www.arguemax.com

I don't know if I'd call these reasons. They are more like excuses. Did you read these excuses? They are all fallacious. #1 appeals to tradition, for example. Heck, the "reasons" are so pathetic and absurd that I'm not sure this site is not satire.

Even if they did (hold water... your reasons), in a poll recently 100 million americans are for DADT

Appeal to popular opinion is hardly logical.

You may not know that the Mormons spent 10 million dollars on an ad campaign to convince people in Californa that gays should have the right to marry removed. And it worked!!

He who spends the most money is right?!

You may also not know that most people in red states consider homosexuality to be akin to being a child molester. They are not correct of course. But good luck in changing their minds.

Appeals to hate are never a good reason to keep a policy.

You may also not know that Americans hate change and they fight it with every fibre of their being. Remember when Carter made the metric system law? How well did that go? You can tell people it is good and it make sense, but somehow Americans resist change.

You are correct. Americans were resistant to allowing womens' suffrage and non-whites' rights as well. I guess we should just give up because Americans never change because they are so resistant.........

 

[Bill Thompson]

If the law is changed, it will catalyze a change in the culture of the military. Based on anecdotal evidence, the current culture condones, and even encourages homophobia.

Maybe. Maybe not. It does not seem the same sort of thing as allowing women to serve. Despite what we would like to believe it does seem that some people are born with a predisposition to be repulsed by homosexuality. Considering this, it is not worth risking national security to try this particular social experiment of change.

You do know that life is not fair, don't you? You do know that the world is not good, fair and just. If it were, there would be no need for a military. Trying to sandwich a piece of fairness in an institution that exists to kill and destroy is perverse, some would say. To me it shows a lack of understanding of the real world.

 

[Bill Thompson]

DODT is outdated and needs to be replaced. We need to realize that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. Thus it is stupid to keep around.

Something put into place by Bill Clinton is outdated? Explain.

You do know that the military does not function as a democracy, don't you? It really is not your or my call to make.

 

[Bill Thompson]

No, it is not just a job. It's a commitment for a certain number of years. However, just like any job, it can be done by homosexuals equally as well as heterosexuals. The fact that other modern armies allow openly homosexuals people into their military and have not suffered for it is evidence of this.

Sorry, friend. I do not think you speak for experience or understanding. And it is non-sequitur to say that such-and-such culture is ok with it then we should follow.

It is like saying that since ancient Romans Senators were all expected to be bisexual, our senators should all be required to be bisexual as well. It worked well for them. It should work well for us.

Today other modern militaries shoot and hang their homosexuals. I suggest you go and preach to the Saudis first if you think your logic is sound.

Your logic is faulty. Pointing to one culture that you like and want the USA to emulate is cherry picking.

We are NOT like other industralized nations. Most other modern nations are secular. We are not.

Good luck with your wishful thinking revolution. I do not have as much faith as you.

 

[Thunder]

Despite what we would like to believe it does seem that some people are born with a predisposition to be repulsed by homosexuality. Considering this, it is not worth risking national security to try this particular social experiment of change.

some people seem to be born hating black people. others, hate Jews since childhood.

should we therefore keep out blacks and Jews?

do you REALLY think we should have government policy that entertains and enables bigotry?